Wright writes.....

[coachmann]

Tony, i admire, and yet am puzzled by, your nice looking "Jamieson" V2? With Jamieson i would expect a brass or nickel boiler, footplate and cab sides?    BK

Monochrome.

[gr.king]

Monochrome image I presume.

Snap!

[Tony Wright]

Tony, i admire, and yet am puzzled by, your nice looking "Jamieson" V2? With Jamieson i would expect a brass or nickel boiler, footplate and cab sides?    BK

Brian,

 

It is in nickel silver and brass. I just grabbed a quick shot, but forgot to alter the white-balance on the camera. Result; it looked like gold - so, grey-scale was applied.

 

Or, since the kit's from the '60s, so's the picture.

[Brian Kirby]

Playing tricks on me again! You managed to make it look like whitemetal!

 

To answer John A, i said "without the hassle" in the context of previously wrestling with some poorly designed or produced kits, i welcome and embrace good RTR, as an aid to creating a complete layout. I've built stacks of loco kits over the years, some have been an absolute pleasure to build, others have been a complete pain. The worst kits i ever built were both by Jidenco (later known as Falcon Brass), they really were more like aids to scratchbuilding. One was the Beattie Well Tank, the prototype has a large boiler combined with quite large driving wheels (reflecting their original suburban use), which almost scrape the boiler, o.k. in P4, but for 'OO' the boiler had to be unavoidably cut away, the instructions were far from helpful. The absolute worst for me, was the Jidenco SR W 2-6-4T, parts didn't fit, the triple smokebox wraps took some figuring out, the side steps could easily foul the valve gear if you added the step sockets, plus again the instructions were far from helpful. In fact, i reckon the person building the proving model, and writing the instructions, probably gave up halfway through, the instructions started off in great detail, but suddenly it said "fit brakegear FULL STOP" and then "fit valve gear FULL STOP". That was it, i think i've still got the paperwork somewhere, the loco went off to a happy customer.

    One of the nicest kits i.ve built for myself, was surprisingly an old 1950s/early 60s K's 44xx that was bought very cheaply, complete with all-metal wheels, a mk1 motor and nice fresh castings, all supplied in a proper upright box. It went together very nicely, although the smokebox saddle/steam chest needed some grinding down, to level the footplate. All built over Christmas and New Year about five years ago, i still haven't painted it, i'll do some pics.

     So i've built many kits for profit, i've built many kits for myself, but i don't just want to keep building loco kits, for me they are all components of a future dream layout, and if good RTR can speed things up, the more the merrier.

 

                                                                Cheers, Brian.

[grob1234]

Isn't the V2 a rather smart looking locomotive?

 

Very much in proportion I think.

[jrg1]

Some days ago I showed a Jamieson V2 which I was constructing. It was attached to a Hornby ex-Shire tender. I wasn't entirely happy with this, so built a PDK GS tender for it - much more in keeping. 

 

DSC_2945.JPG

 

It'll be on my demonstration stand at the Wigan Show over the weekend. 

 

Dsc_2950.jpg

 

I'm also building a different-style PDK GS tender, in case I choose one of the slightly later-build V2s for Grantham. 

 

 

I am focussing here on the GS tender variations.  Checking my sources, Yeadon's register planned two appendix volumes dealing with LNER tenders-only one has been published.  The LNER 8-wheelers and the GCR sections are a good reference for who was attached to what.  Furthermore, the GNR Society tender publication is an invaluable source.  What we do not have as far as I am aware is a survey of LNER GS tenders, and as pointed out on this forum by Tony Wright, there are many permutations-Are there any publications on this subject?

Additionally, the boiler allocation for the LNER Pacifics is detailed in the part 2A Green Bible.  I believe it would have been most helpful if Yeadon's Register had prepared a boiler register for the 100A boiler at least, to be able to cross check boiler changes.  Any thoughts on this?  

Top marks for the V2 by the way, which prompted this post.

[johnarcher]

Playing tricks on me again! You managed to make it look like whitemetal!

 

To answer John A, i said "without the hassle" in the context of previously wrestling with some poorly designed or produced kits, i welcome and embrace good RTR, as an aid to creating a complete layout. I've built stacks of loco kits over the years, some have been an absolute pleasure to build, others have been a complete pain. The worst kits i ever built were both by Jidenco (later known as Falcon Brass), they really were more like aids to scratchbuilding. One was the Beattie Well Tank, the prototype has a large boiler combined with quite large driving wheels (reflecting their original suburban use), which almost scrape the boiler, o.k. in P4, but for 'OO' the boiler had to be unavoidably cut away, the instructions were far from helpful. The absolute worst for me, was the Jidenco SR W 2-6-4T, parts didn't fit, the triple smokebox wraps took some figuring out, the side steps could easily foul the valve gear if you added the step sockets, plus again the instructions were far from helpful. In fact, i reckon the person building the proving model, and writing the instructions, probably gave up halfway through, the instructions started off in great detail, but suddenly it said "fit brakegear FULL STOP" and then "fit valve gear FULL STOP". That was it, i think i've still got the paperwork somewhere, the loco went off to a happy customer.

    One of the nicest kits i.ve built for myself, was surprisingly an old 1950s/early 60s K's 44xx that was bought very cheaply, complete with all-metal wheels, a mk1 motor and nice fresh castings, all supplied in a proper upright box. It went together very nicely, although the smokebox saddle/steam chest needed some grinding down, to level the footplate. All built over Christmas and New Year about five years ago, i still haven't painted it, i'll do some pics.

     So i've built many kits for profit, i've built many kits for myself, but i don't just want to keep building loco kits, for me they are all components of a future dream layout, and if good RTR can speed things up, the more the merrier.

 

                                                                Cheers, Brian.

I agree about Jidenco, ( I remember an 01 kit), and also that some K's ones were OK (I must keep an eye open for another 44xx kit, I wish I could afford the Mitchell one). It is ranges like K's that have got a bit rare, I suppose the sales of popular prototypes (the 14xx, 57xx I mentioned, now RTR) subsidised the rest of the range?

 

I wasn't objecting to people using RTR, as I said personal preference, but I do regret that its prevalence (and quality) seems to make 4mm kits less viable commercially, affecting those who like the making for its own sake.

Personally I'd rather deal with a dubious kit, and restrict my plans to what I can make in a reasonable time (the type of prototype I like makes that easier) than use RTR, but that's just my choice. Buying something ready-made if I could make it seems a bit like getting someone else to eat my favourite food for me.

Edited October 2, 2015 by johnarcher

[coachmann]

One man's meat etc.....I used to rail-journey to Leeds or York for a 'fix' of Eastern Region after my beloved Woodhead became a waste of space. But I have to say the V2's left me stone cold after seeing non-wedge Pacifics. I suppose it is similar to Class 40's, which made the heart beat faster, while the ¾ Class 37's were a pale shadow. I remember a V2 trying to leave York while slipping itself silly, and it was only light-engine!

Edited October 2, 2015 by coachmann

[Tony Wright]

I agree about Jidenco, ( I remember an 01 kit), and also that some K's ones were OK (I must keep an eye open for another 44xx kit, I wish I could afford the Mitchell one). It is ranges like K's that have got a bit rare, I suppose the sales of popular prototypes (the 14xx, 57xx I mentioned, now RTR) subsidised the rest of the range?

 

I wasn't objecting to people using RTR, as I said personal preference, but I do regret that its prevalence (and quality) seems to make 4mm kits less viable commercially, affecting those who like the making for its own sake.

Personally I'd rather deal with a dubious kit, and restrict my plans to what I can make in a reasonable time (the type of prototype I like makes that easier) than use RTR, but that's just my choice. Buying something ready-made if I could make it seems a bit like getting someone else to eat my favourite food for me.

Thanks again, John.

 

I must put your last statement into the memory bank for future use at a talk. There are, of course, those who cannot make things for whatever reason and it would seem churlish to deny them the right to own superlative RTR models. But, the emphasis is on 'own' - they're property, not personal creations. And, the rise of RTR has impacted in a very non-positive way on the (particularly loco) kit market. But all this has been said before.........

 

Regarding older kits (and the only sort I was unable to build were Jidenco and MTK; well, not without chucking most of the bits away and scratch-building!), building the Jamieson V2 was immensely liberating and enjoyable. It was a return to my past, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. At this time of the 'professional' bleater (my own view entirely) who complains just about everything - too expensive, not what I want, why hasn't this been made? Why is it taking so long? I can't do this for whatever reason.......... What a joy to go back to a simpler time. A time when RTR was rubbish, and mixed-media/etched kits weren't on the radar. Jamieson kits were the next stage on from scratch-building - someone had cut out the parts and (in most cases) shaped them for you. All one had to do was solder them together. Forget about positions provided for handrails, slots and tabs and niceties like washout plugs, beading/window surrounds, lubricators, brakes, tender steps and so forth - those had to be added by the builder. What a return to core loco-building, the sort (I imagine) enjoyed by Bert Collins, John Edgson and Frank Dyer (though I'm not in their league). No exclusively RTR-user will ever enjoy the feeling of having built such a loco, and it certainly wasn't hassle. And, this is the best bit - it's more accurate in its proportions than the current RTR V2, the valve gear will be finer, it'll pull considerably more and it's incredibly cheap in comparison, even with a DJH motor/gearbox.

 

So, my advice? The fading EAMES yellow boxes appear on many stalls, particularly at the society shows. Even, the square 'Cornwall' boxes can be found from time to time as well (with a picture of any old engine on the front!). Buy one, and have a go - it won't cost you much. 

 

Each is entitled to his/her opinion, but in my view the V2 is one of the most elegant steam locos ever designed. It's just right, from any angle to me. And no other 'second-division' loco could do what they did during the War. 

[Brian Kirby]

There have been grumblings for some time about the RTR Bachmann V2, regarding shape of body and various details. Tony's excellent kit-built V2 above, shows how a decent kit and a bit of construction wizardry can still produce a superior product. Having said that, some of the better RTR has saved us the trouble of coping with some of the more challenging kits covering the more common classes. Quality of kits can vary enormously, some are improved over the years by the manufacturer, some go down hill as time goes by, as moulds wear more flash appears on castings.

  In the case of K's kits, the GWR 44xx mentioned above, was a mothballed unbuilt example from the 1950s or 60s (still with Shepherd's Bush address), that had been stashed away in somebody else's stock cupboard for years. Okay the K's Mk1 motor is very old hat now, and crudely made complete with rough cut ends, but it still works well and is fit for purpose, whereas in the late 1970s K's tried to economise production by introducing a nasty little plastic motor called the HP2M, which didn't even have proper metal bearings (i think they did add bearings towards the very end of later motor production, which helped a little, but it was too late by then, the damage had been done). At the same time, K's in their wisdom, changed their driving wheel design from the well made all-metal wheelsets (wheels were supplied pre-quartered and ready on axles, to slip into keyhole bearings), to again nasty soft plastic-centred wheels. These incorporated a centre fixing screw, rather akin to the Romford wheel nuts in reverse, but K's moulded in a 'D' shape centre, that fitted over special 'D' end axles, which cleverly gave you automatic self-quartering, but sadly too many of the 'D' plastic centres quickly deformed and slipped, losing all adherence, resulting in disaster. So if you are looking for a classic K's kit to build complete, try and find an older boxed example, rather than with the bubble pack issue, where you'll probably want to replace motor and wheels, not to mention the plastic gearwheels and dreaded plastic handrail knobs.

 

                                                                                                           Cheers, Brian.

Edited October 2, 2015 by Brian Kirby

[Mallard60022]

One man's meat etc.....I used to rail-journey to Leeds or York for a 'fix' of Eastern Region after my beloved Woodhead became a waste of space. But I have to say the V2's left me stone cold after seeing non-wedge Pacifics. I suppose it is similar to Class 40's, which made the heart beat faster, while the ¾ Class 37's were a pale shadow. I remember a V2 trying to leave York while slipping itself silly, and it was only light-engine!

That's interesting as the V2s during the war were famed for their haulage of huge trains. Better drivers (persons, not wheels) in the 40s maybe?

Phil

[coachmann]

That's interesting as the V2s during the war were famed for their haulage of huge trains. Better drivers (persons, not wheels) in the 40s maybe?

Phil

It was just the V2 picked up its feet and maybe the regulator was stiff, or the driver could have been annoyed about his previous run. Haven't we all had shifts like that!? "The V2 winning the war" always brings a wince seeing as it's territory was merely one company, the LNER. It always sounds like another of those wearisome sayings like 'Gresley-was-right'  and so forth that the "enthusiasts" have been peddling since I wus a mere lad. Common sense tells us the other three railways put in a mighty effort during the war years and no doubt the largest of them all put its various 5MT's and 7P's to good use, while the GW Castles, Granges, Manors and Halls must have done their share. The Southern may have been less of a freight concern but it smallish locos must have coped admirably considering the hammering the south got from Mr.Hitlers bombers.

 

When it comes to long passenger trains, the West Coast had been famous for it for years. Perhaps hanging a boatload of coaches behind a V2 during the war was a novelty for a line used to running its Pacifics with 9 or so coaches.

Edited October 2, 2015 by coachmann

[Brian Kirby]

Pictures can be better than just words, here are some quickies of my aforementioned 44xx, that remained a kit for fifty-odd years, only being built in 2010, and which was an enjoyable experience. It's pure K's right down to the lovely brass shank sprung buffers, although the gears were missing, so i substituted Romford 40:1. The loco has remained on my workbench for five years now, awaiting a coat of black paint (early 50s), although the excuse is that i still need to add brakegear first (and a few bits like vacuum piston and end pipes), kits didn't cater for brakegear back then.    BK

 

[jwealleans]

a novelty for a line used to running its Pacifics with 9 or so coaches.

Ooh, Larry, you know how to light a touchpaper, don't you? I've studied the ECML carriage workings extensively and there were any number of trains which left King's Cross in the later 1930s with between 15 and 18 carriages (before any strengtheners were added).

 

Not to downplay the much harder gradients on the West Coast or the mighty impressive work of WAS, but to suggest that all the East Coast did was send out multiples of the 'Scarborough Flyer' all day is a bit mischievous.

[coachmann]

Ooh, Larry, you know how to light a touchpaper, don't you? I've studied the ECML carriage workings extensively and there were any number of trains which left King's Cross in the later 1930s with between 15 and 18 carriages (before any strengtheners were added).

 

Not to downplay the much harder gradients on the West Coast or the mighty impressive work of WAS, but to suggest that all the East Coast did was send out multiples of the 'Scarborough Flyer' all day is a bit mischievous.

I'll bet you're right. All I ever saw were photos showing lightweight trains behind blue or silver A4's. So I dug out 'My Favourite Railway Photos' by C.C.B.Herbert and found a few 8-coach trains behind A3's and A4's, one train being the 'Silver Jubilee'. Then I dug out EricTreacy's LMS and Maurice Earley's GWR & SR albums in the same series from the late 1940's and I couldn't see the back of most trains....They were too far in the distance ha ha. Having said that, the shortest GWR train of 7 coaches was behind a 'King' working the Up 'Bristolian'.

 

Brian K., I do like that 44XX. When I built locos in the 1970's a loco fitted with brakegear was in the SD Series = super-detailed! And the brake gear was wire and crescent shaped brass pressings. How times changed.

Edited October 2, 2015 by coachmann

[johnarcher]

Thanks again, John.

 

I must put your last statement into the memory bank for future use at a talk. There are, of course, those who cannot make things for whatever reason and it would seem churlish to deny them the right to own superlative RTR models. But, the emphasis is on 'own' - they're property, not personal creations. And, the rise of RTR has impacted in a very non-positive way on the (particularly loco) kit market. But all this has been said before.........

 

You're welcome to the phrase Tony. (If you don't mind using a RTR simile).

Edited October 2, 2015 by johnarcher

[johnarcher]

Pictures can be better than just words, here are some quickies of my aforementioned 44xx, that remained a kit for fifty-odd years, only being built in 2010, and which was an enjoyable experience. It's pure K's right down to the lovely brass shank sprung buffers, although the gears were missing, so i substituted Romford 40:1. The loco has remained on my workbench for five years now, awaiting a coat of black paint (early 50s), although the excuse is that i still need to add brakegear first (and a few bits like vacuum piston and end pipes), kits didn't cater for brakegear back then.    BK

 

Very nice (the 44xx, I think, was a particularly handsome locomotive, done justice here). Mind you I can't really imagine me building a K's chassis for P4, but the body castings were pretty good, and I'd put a K's body on a Comet, High Level or Percy chassis.

Edited October 3, 2015 by johnarcher

[t-b-g]

There are one or two ECML layouts around that run scale length models of real trains. The latest Hornby magazine has an article on "Retford" which mentions that the longest train modelled on that layout runs with 15 carriages. Many trains on the layout have nearly as many.

 

From memory (Tony W will no doubt know for sure) the 1957 timetable was the last one where many trains ran with such long carriage rakes. After that, the next timetable had shorter but faster trains in the main.

 

There are records of wartime trains loading up to 26 carriages departing from Kings Cross (with a V2 at the front as it happens).

 

The longest train I have ever heard of in steam days was one that I was told of by Richard Hardy, who was at Retford one day during the war working in the offices on the station. Somebody came in and told him that he should come out and see what was in the platform. It was an ex GCR B7 4-6-0 on 36 carriages. The train was stopped in the station and the loco got it going again after a bit of a struggle.

 

Not many layouts could cope with that monster and it would even be round about half the length of the "Retford" model.

 

Roy Jackson has been building a B7 so perhaps, one day.... 

Edited October 2, 2015 by t-b-g

[LNER4479]

I'll bet you're right. All I ever saw were photos showing lightweight trains behind blue or silver A4's. So I dug out 'My Favourite Railway Photos' by C.C.B.Herbert and found a few 8-coach trains behind A3's and A4's, one train being the 'Silver Jubilee'. Then I dug out EricTreacy's LMS and Maurice Earley's GWR & SR albums in the same series from the late 1940's and I couldn't see the back of most trains....They were too far in the distance ha ha. Having said that, the shortest GWR train of 7 coaches was behind a 'King' working the Up 'Bristolian'.

VERY mischievous! Virtually ALL the 'normal' expresses leaving (and arriving in) King's Cross were sizeable cavalcades - and there was a very simple (and logical) reason for this. The East Coast Mainline from London to Doncaster consisted of long stretches of two track railway so pure line occupancy reasons meant that there was a limit to the number of such expresses that could be run in between the inevitable conveyor belt of goods traffic.

 

That meant in turn that many trains were effectively two or more combined into one, usually with a core formation for the main destination (eg Leeds), with a glorious variety of through portions (Harrogate, Bradford) and single through coaches (eg Halifax) tagged on either side.

 

THAT meant in turn that big locos were needed in quantity to avoid inefficient double-heading - hence the large numbers of East Coast pacifics. QED.

[jwealleans]

"M is for Midland with engines galore... two on each train and asking for more"

 

[glo41f]

I too love the V2. It is well proportioned engine and ideal for its purpose. I just wish that they worked in my area of the GE. They got to Cambridge and March but not further east so I cannot justify one arriving at the north norfolk coast. At one time I was bent on trying to model the GN line too but realised that I could never do it. That is why I am in awe of the Retford crew and others on this forum who have managed to capture bits of the old railway to inspire the dreams.

 

I found K's kits to be a variable feast. I stood in the spotlight at the Ipswich club years ago as the only one who got a ROD  to work properly! Never tried a GW outline one though. The HP2M motor was an aberration. The other motors they produced could fall to bits and be glued back together. In those days we worked so hard to achieve not much at all really! 

 

Martin Long

[robertcwp]

Tony will probably recognize this coach from a couple of months ago, it's a LNER Thompson Pantry 3rd, which i believe is from the late Geoff Brewin collection, which Tony was helping find new homes for. This carriage has been "re-allocated" to the Robert Carroll railway franchise, but has come to Holloway Works for coupling conversion. Off have come the fixed two-pin rake couplings, to be replaced with "British Standard" (!) Bachmann type, so it can couple to RTR types, although i do know that Robert uses Sprat & Winkle couplings on the outside of his coach rakes. I re-used the previously swivelling coupling bar, chopping it back and soldering it in solidly, so now it acts as a reinforcing torsion bar, otherwise the outside stretchers would be prone to bowing. The Bachmann couplings are mounted on the end of these bars, with a Peco trackpin acting as a fastening rivet (or use nut and bolt), with the whole joint locked and made stronger with superglue.

      Whilst modifying the bogies, i did wonder if the coach was carrying the correct number? Checking Harris's blue LNER coach book appendix revealed that seven were built, numbered E1330-5E + E1345E, this was backed up by the relevant Isinglass/John Edgson drawing, plus ironically by the Comet instructions. Unless anybody knows of any other pantry cars, it looks as though E1321E will be easily re-numbered to E1331E, although the number has been applied as a set waterslide and not with individual numerals, removal might be risky, an overlaid numeral may be safer. Another curiosity are the no-smoking labels, i would have thought the middle windows between labels would have carried them as well, unless perhaps a photo proves otherwise? I look forward to seeing this coach running regularly on Robert's layout, far better that it gets plenty of use, rather than being stored away for ages in a box.

                                       Cheers, Brian.

 

CIMG4979.JPG

CIMG4982.JPG

CIMG4980.JPG

CIMG4981.JPG

CIMG4983.JPG 

Hopefully it will get some use on my layout. I would really like a Gresley RF to go with it.  Then, along with some Mark I stock, I could form up a late 1950s 'South Yorkshireman' - I have seen several photos of a Thompson pantry car in that train, but always with a Gresley RF.

 

The wrong number doesn't concern me greatly but the slightly out of position crest is a mild irritant, but not enough for me to change it, or ask Brian to do so.

[Focalplane]

I am reasonably sure I built a K's 44XX back in the late 1960s early 1970s.  The smokebox stays seemed to be a problem for me to solder and I ended up using glue.  Then I went overseas and the loco disappeared.  Or at least I think it did!  They were nice looking tank engines, well proportioned and efficient for their size.

[johnarcher]

Recently we've had comments about the good looks of the 44xx and the V2.

Any other nominations for especially handsome locomotives?

(I don't only like GW ones, I think the J15 is very attractive (both the GE and Irish versions), and the Beattie well tank).

GW Mogul's nice too.

[coachmann]

Recently we've had comments about the good looks of the 44xx and the V2.

Any other nominations for especially handsome locomotives?

(I don't only like GW ones, I think the J15 is very attractive (both the GE and Irish versions), and the Beattie well tank).

GW Mogul's nice too.

To my artistic eyes, the Peppercorn A1 was the most impressive and well-balanced design around, while the LYR ran the stable with the ugliest designs. But for the largest collection of non-novelty simple straightforward locomotives that looked and were well engineered and reliable using gradual improvements rather than blank pieces of paper, I point to the GWR.